Clairmont: 'The implications are huge for survivors'

Libel ruling against Ancaster sisters over abuse allegations could set troubling precedent

Ontario's sexual assault centres are applying for intervener status in the appeal of two Ancaster sisters sued for libel after accusing their uncle of abuse.

The case has set a dangerous precedent, sending a message to survivors of sexual assault to stay silent, says the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres (OCRCC).

The women sent emails to relatives and friends telling them the uncle — who has never been criminally charged — abused them as children.

A superior court judge found them guilty of libel and ordered them to pay $125,000 in damages to the uncle.

One line in an email was referred to by Justice Andrew Goodman as being particularly egregious. It read: "We do not want anyone else to be sexually abused."

Goodman wrote those words "intended to evince the defamatory meanings that (the uncle) is a sexual predator, likely to reoffend and is not to be trusted or left alone with children."

The Spectator has chosen not to name the sisters or their uncle because this column is more about the issues at stake rather than the particulars of this case.

Now the sisters are appealing with the backing of the OCRCC, which has 25 member organizations, including the Sexual Assault Centre of Hamilton and Area (SACHA).

"Survivors are being punished for simply speaking out and seeking support," says Nicole Pietsch, co-ordinator of OCRCC. "The implications are huge for survivors who ever talk about it to anyone."

The decision will have a "chilling effect" on sexual assault survivors, Pietsch says, adding it is well known survivors already "under report" their abuse due to the stigma involved.

The coalition is being represented by a Toronto lawyer who is working pro bono, though the OCRCC is raising funds to help pay for what will likely be a long and slow legal process. To be granted intervener status, the coalition must show there is an issue at stake that could affect the rights of many people.

The women, who are now in their 30s, say the abuse happened when they were four and six years old at the uncle's farm in Simcoe in the early 1980s, according to Goodman's written decision.

In 2006 they confronted their uncle and sent a series of emails outlining their allegations to family and friends.

They did not report the alleged abuse to police.

After the sisters were sued for libel, they filed a counterclaim for sexual battery which was dismissed by Goodman because their memories of the abuse were not clear enough.

Court documents show one sister testified to waking up with her uncle on top of her and feeling pain in her groin.

She also had a vague memory of what may have been oral sex on another occasion.

The other sister testified she recalls a single image in which she sees herself on the floor "with the dark shape of a grown man on top of her."

The case also raises concerns about false accusations levied against innocent people.

"I don't think I've ever met any survivor who wants to be a member of this (survivors') club," says Lenore Lukasik-Foss, executive director of SACHA. "We know false reports are a reality, but they are very rare. There is not a cultural phenomenon of false accusations happening."

Goodman said had he found the uncle guilty of sexual abuse, he would have set damages at $70,000, considerably less than what he ordered the sisters to pay for the libel suit.